nethackfandomcom-20200214-history
Talk:Wishing
Too many references? I was trying to be diligent/helpful, but now it looks cluttered, and the list of refs at the bottom is horribly broken ... Killian 13:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC) :There was an extra tag which ZeroOne fixed. How many references to include is a tricky question. Use your good judgement :-) In this page's Other options section you could just link to objnam.c#line1833 as the start of the code which lists all the adjectives you can wish an object to have. --Jayt 21:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC) To the person who removed the quest artifact warning for chaotics and lawfuls: it should be replaced. A helm of opposite alignment will always turn a lawful into a chaotic and vice versa. It cannot be used to turn somebody into a neutral. The only way to turn neutral is to convert at an altar, which is risky, difficult, and could render your game unwinnable if you don't know what you're doing. I'll leave it open for discussion for a little while in case anyone disagrees. Djao 21:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC) :Warning restored, with a bit of explanation.--Ray Chason 21:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC) To 69.201.183.14: First of all, thanks for contributing. I'd like to change some things, and I prefer to discuss things before I make changes. First of all, regarding Magicbane and the Eye of the Aethiopica. Yes, they all provide magic resistance, but I do not consider these sources as reliable as a cloak of magic resistance, and therefore I think it's a bad idea to put them on equal footing as you have done here. The Eye can be stolen by the Wizard, and Magicbane can be stolen by nymphs, or simply unwielded while using a pick-axe and so on. To list these artifacts as sources of magic resistance is dangerous, even if correct, because then some people might actually rely on them for magic resistance, which is a bad idea. The phrase "blessed greased fixed" is fine; in fact it's what I normally use. I would prefer putting the +3 outside the quotes, to allow people to cut and paste from the wiki into an actual nethack game. On the other hand, "blessed" by itself is almost as good. "Fixed" as you point out is meaningless for DSM, and greased might be useful if you don't have a cloak -- but who plays without a cloak? I think some variation in the phrase is desirable because otherwise people get into the habit of preceding every wish with "blessed greased fixed". In reality, not every wish benefits from "blessed greased fixed"; in particular, weapons become slippery when greased, and magic markers are usually better uncursed. Djao 08:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC) : I made the changes already. It's still open for discussion in any case. Djao 12:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC) I have to say, the more I play, the more I lean towards silver dragon scale mail over gray, either as an early wish, or, even more so, waited for, while wishing for one of the many MR artifacts (which also have other great benefits) while artifacts can still be wished for. I guess I take issue with the line "Unless you already have a source of magic resistance, gray dragon scale mail is a better choice." Maybe that original line wasn't said with deep conviction, but I worry I might be stepping into an age-old debate, so here goes: If someone wants reflection and magic resistance, from gray dragon scale mail, that leaves 1. gray DSM + amulet of reflection: Most importantly, this rules out the amulet of lifesaving, which is very important to some and, to a lesser extent, amulet of ESP, which is more of a preference thing - and if someone does go the amulet of ESP route, and still wants extrinsic telepathy, that therefore rules out the helm of brilliance. 2. gray + shield of reflection: I'm not a huge SoR fan, I must admit, I don't like relying on the shield, and it rules out two-weaponing, two-handed weapons (including vulnerability from occasional polearm use) and greatly impairs spellcasting. Both of those combinations are very anti-caster, and I think they sort of pigeon-hole pretty much every non-wizard character into being a melee basher. Silver dragon scale mail, on the other hand, in combo with an MR artifact, can still let someone wear a robe, or even with just the cloak still lets someone two-weapon or two-handed weapon. And while personally, I'd wish for an MR artifact with an early wish while I had the chance, to get the free slot and side benefits, I'd even go so far as to say reflection is as or more important to survival up until the castle as is MR. Wands of fire, lightning, and cold are devastating to early-mid characters (and their equipment), and I almost always encounter black dragons at Medusa's level. Even a blue dragon there can be instant-death if you are relying on a ring of levitation above the water. So if a player gets an early wish, and needs reflection and MR but still needs the hefty boost to AC (or can't/won't wish for artifacts), I'd lean towards silver. Also, a question: The Wizard will only steal a quest artifact if it was the players quest artifact, right? If this is true, then that would seem as safe a source of magic resistance. As for a nymph stealing Magicbane and then getting hit with a touch of death the next turn, well this is NetHack after all, you can't rule out every possibility. But there are scrolls of genocide if that is a big concern in a game where you feel a little less confident about your source of MR. Floatingeye 17:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC) :When you're talking about an early game wish, MR is better than reflection. Level teleport traps, poly traps, wands of striking and magic missile are all nullified by MR. Nasty ray attacks only come by the middle, when you've had a chance to finish Sokoban and Medusa. :All the things you're talking about involve trading some of the immediate utility of the early wish for long-term utility. Quest artifacts are an excellent example: The Orb of Fate is a bad-ass artifact, but it's pretty useless if you're only 3rd level. If you wish for it that early, you're gambling that you can make it through the early game without having put that wish to better use in exchange for a much easier mid-late game. :I think the best advice for new players is to maximize immediate utility. Sure, near the end you'd like SDSM and quest artifacts galore, but if you've never reached the castle, then you should be wishing for GDSM, speed boots, whatever will keep you alive until the next floor of the dungeon. :-Mniot 05:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC) ::My 2zm - I agree with both of you, but Mniot makes more sense to me. Please note that this is a personal opinion. If you get a wish early enough, you'll want to maximise your survivability - and MR helps me out in more games than reflection. Just look at the number of times a Wizard survives when they really shouldn't have. By the time I am worrying about ray attacks, I have either already obtained a source of reflection if I am lucky enough in Sokoban (and hopefully found a BoH in the Gnomish Mines) or am able to survive what is thrown against me already. Yes, disintegration immunity is nice, but if you're up to Black Dragons, you should hopefully have a few tricks up your sleeve. ::If you get a wish in the mid-to-late-game, you might want to change what type you wish for, and Mniot makes sense there - always remember that surviving one character is better than starting a new one... -- Kalon 21:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC) ::: I see that somebody has ignored this discussion and unilaterally modified the text into something that to my eyes certainly appears to promote SDSM over GDSM. I believe it would be justified to revert the aforementioned edit based solely on the fact that it was done without consulting this talk page. Nevertheless, should the above contributor prove willing to participate in this dialogue, I would like to make the following technical points: :::* There are many other easily available ways to protect against fire, cold, and lightning attacks, even without reflection. There are very few ways to protect against the nasty MR effects, and even when alternatives to MR exist, they are harder to get (e.g. fire resistance vs. teleport control). :::* There are many other ways to protect against floating eyes, even without reflection. :::* Reflection is much easier to get than MR: Sokoban, Perseus, etc. ::: All of these factors must be weighed and considered when choosing between SDSM and GDSM. Indeed, there are also factors (such as Elbereth) that when used properly favor SDSM over GDSM. Because many of these factors revolve around finding alternative methods and estimating future events, they are hard for a novice player to judge correctly. At the very least, the "correct" choice involves some very nuanced and subtle decision making. If we are just giving a short recommendation, then omitting these nuances is understandable, but if we are going to provide a long comparison (which is what we have here), then these nuances must be mentioned; and, I might add that at this level of detail it would be better to have the input of an experienced player rather than one for whom floating eyes are still a threat. ::: In light of the extensive amount of discussion that this topic has generated, I propose to revert the questionable changes and to request 98.169.65.2 to participate in this dialogue if he/she wishes to contribute material on this topic. I do welcome new contributions, but paying attention to talk pages is also important IMO. Djao 02:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC) :::: I really can't see any major problems with the current text. Is it really such a problem that SDSM is presented as a legitimate choice? Perhaps the phrasing could be toned down a little, but as far as I can see all the points presented by the current revision are legitimate. -- Killian 07:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC) ::::: Well, I happen to think that participating in talk pages should be encouraged, and the fact that someone made such an edit without paying any attention to the talk page is in and of itself a problem. I'd be interested in other viewpoints. ::::: As for the technical merits of the text itself, I believe the text is biased. In most cases, bias is very subjective and hard to quantify, but in this case the bias is very easy to quantify, as follows: every listed advantage of GDSM is qualified in some way, whereas every listed advantage of SDSM is not qualified in any way, even though (as I demonstrated above) such qualifications are just as applicable to SDSM, if not more so. I also do not think that adding qualifications for SDSM is necessarily a good idea: see below. Djao 23:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC) :::::: It seems strange to criticize the text for “bias” when the previous revision flat-out declared GDSM to be better, but I'm not terribly inclined to argue about it since I don't think it would achieve much. Now that I've displaced the DSM advice to its own article (see below), we can feel free to add alternative advice and viewpoints without polluting the main Wish page. -- Killian 05:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC) ::::::: I addressed this concern in my original paragraph. The previous revision contained a short recommendation, and it is understandable for a short recommendation to omit such minutiae. The revision that I was complaining about contained a long comparison, which included certain minute details and omitted others -- very different situation. Nevertheless, you are right -- there is no need for more discussion now that we have a separate article. Djao 19:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC) :::: If you want to add more information about when GDSM is a better choice, I say go ahead. Don't worry about having too much detail; it's better than not enough. Everything on the current page is a legitimate point, though, and there's no reason to remove data. 20:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC) ::::: I agree that removing data from the wiki is a bad idea, but removing data from an individual article is sometimes a good thing. Too much detail in one article makes the article longer. A long article is harder to read, and much harder to scan, than a short article. I suggest that we need to find a balance between length and comprehensiveness. After all, this article is about wishes, not about GDSM vs. SDSM. The topic of GDSM vs. SDSM is really only one narrow aspect of wishing, and it should not deserve a long section. ::::: I would wholeheartedly endorse the idea of, for example, moving the GDSM vs. SDSM topic to its own article, and for the Wish article to contain only a small mention of this topic with a link to the longer article. I don't think it's a good idea to put a long discussion about GDSM vs. SDSM in the main body of the Wish article, for the reasons above. Djao 23:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC) :::::: Since I was also considering this, I've taken the liberty of creating GDSM versus SDSM, and replacing the advice in this article with a link to that one. (Actually I think it might be a good idea to give What to wish for its own article, but that's a separate matter.) -- Killian 05:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC) ::::::: Thank you for taking care of this task. I'm happy with the present text. Djao 19:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)